(Washington) - Since taking office in January, President Obama's policy on Sudan remains a work in progress since its major outlines or areas of emphasis have yet to be clarified by the administration. The President reiterated his commitment to staying engaged on Sudan, especially with regards to the ongoing crisis in Darfur, by appointing a special envoy, Ret. Gen. Scott Gration. He also made the obligatory statements committing the US government to the maintenance of the fragile peace in Southern Sudan as promulgated in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. The administration early on also announced that a comprehensive review of the policy on Sudan is underway by its National Security Council.

Nonetheless, many activists and advocates of peace are starting to detect a pronounced emphasis on a carrots approach to the ruling party in Sudan by the administration. That is alarming to many because that duplicitous clique running the country always leverages any soft diplomatic engagement with it to further oppress its political opponents in the country and to further frustrate any serious progress on the peace and democratic transformation tracks.

Currently, several pieces of legislation intended to reform law enforcement and intelligence services, protect freedom of speech and assembly, organize the exercise of popular consultation in the Three Areas and Referendum in Southern Sudan, are all yet to be enacted because of the intransigence of the ruling regime.

The Darfur situation is equally stagnant, with the added horror of ongoing civilian deaths and rampant misery in the sprawling refugee camps. The ruling party refuses to budge on its rigid positions in the endless cycle of peace talks with the Darfur movements, and is once again counting on its wily tricks to dismantle the insurgency in Darfur no matter the cost to the civilians in the region.

The Obama administration came into office with overwhelming support from many Sudanese Americans and others back home who were inspired by his lofty vision and the incredible thought of seeing a son of an African immigrant achieve that lofty post. They were also greatly encouraged by his consistent advocacy on behalf of the victims of the carnage in Darfur and his oft-stated commitment to pressure the Sudanese government to fully implement the CPA and end the war in Darfur. In fact, he categorically stated in a pre-election questionnaire that ending the genocide in Darfur would be a priority of his from Day One.

However, what we have been observing since January is a serious lack of resolve in the few public pronouncements made by administration officials and allies during visits to Sudan. The visit of the envoy, Mr. Gration, was greeted with trepidation by the ruling party, but they were pleasantly surprised by the bouquets of flowers and carrots he came with. His whole visit was almost entirely devoted to professing the hand of friendship he was extending to the government and his hope that there would be a new page in the relations between Khartoum and Washington.

Senator John Kerry followed the envoy to Khartoum and was even more conciliatory, including suggesting that the lifting of US sanctions against the Sudan was now in the cards. All this conciliatory gestures were almost extended without any reciprocation from the regime, given that it has refused to allow the expelled aid agencies back into the country or made any serious moves on the negotiating demands of the Darfur movements.

This is a marked change from the US posture on Sudan maintained by the Bush administration, and suggests that maybe the Obama administration is about to commit the mistake of reversing every policy of its predecessor without serious regard to context.

Many of us supported Mr. Obama's campaign because we also shared his critique of the strategic blunders committed by the Bush administration in the war in Iraq and its unilateral foreign policy doctrine after the tragedy of 9/11. However, no one assumed that his warranted differences with Bush would cloud his oft-stated views on the crisis in Sudan and the nefarious record of the National Congress party since it took power.

In fairness, the Bush administration deserves significant credit for its leading role in pressuring the combatants in Africa's longest running civil war to lay down arms and commit to a political settlement. That political settlement, known as the CPA, had the added virtue of formulating a set of steps and constitutional arrangements to usher in elections and democratic transformation in the whole country. The CPA was therefore a serious political concession from the ruling regime that galloped into power in the dead of night on June 30th, 1989, and had until then ruled the country under a sadistic theocratic police state. That concession came along only because the Bush administration shifted course after the attacks of 9/11 and vigorously leveraged its power to compel the government to end its shadowy relations with terrorist organizations and seriously negotiate with the SPLM in Kenya.

Given the record of the regime in Khartoum, the Bush administration was not mistaken in maintaining a coherent and sustained pressure on it, and it did so after cobbling together a regional and international coalition of countries like Kenya, Ethiopia, the UK, Norway, the Netherlands and Italy to achieve the 2005 accord in Naivasha. In fact, if there was an area of foreign policy were Obama's doctrine of international cooperation on foreign policy and security matters perfectly matched with what Bush did, it was on Sudan, and especially with regards to ending the war between the SPLM and the ruling regime.

However, it now appears that the reflexive urge of many administrations to start over and abandon all that they find when they come into office has blinded Obama's officials from the history of this regime ruling Sudan. They have mistakenly started trying to fit their approach towards the rest of the Muslim and Arab world to the conflict in Sudan.

It is the wrong analogy, because the Sudanese government, its rhetoric notwithstanding, is actively killing fellow Muslims in Darfur and is ruling a religiously diverse African nation. Even some Sudanese officials preemptively started suggesting that Obama's policy towards Sudan would clarify whether he was serious about his rhetoric about reconciliation with the Muslim world.

The reconciliatory posture by Kerry, Gration and company therefore seems to be part of an orchestrated rollout of a new policy that will surely warm the hearts of the rulers in Khartoum. The Obama administration surely thinks they will tinker and regulate pressure and inducement with the regime to great results, but history suggests that their interlocutors in Khartoum will only sense indirection and weakness in their efforts.

The spineless engagement policy of the Clinton administration did not compel the regime to seriously contemplate ending the war and neither will Obama's approach of appeasement do that on the Darfur front. In fact, it is more likely that it will embolden the regime to start thinking of rolling back the provisions of the CPA and ultimately reigniting the conflict in Southern Sudan.

I would like to conclude by saying that our concern is precipitated by these flurry of alarming news and utterances by Obama administration officials, but we are optimistic that the ultimate policy pursued will not be so feeble so long as stalwart leaders like the President, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton remember what they said a few months ago on the campaign trail. The global power and prestige of the United States of America are too precious to be wasted on the altar of appeasing intransigent despots and wanted war criminals.

*The author can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.